I think the licence fees are way too expensive now, you really get very little for the money IMO. The lion's share of the money goes to CA, not the club. I don't see a power test being too relevant for grading purposes, for all the reasons others have already stated. Electronic timing would be good but they are quite expensive, a lot of clubs can't afford them and CA wouldn't have the money to gift a system to every club.

Don't want to drag this an y further off topic but my thinking in regard to electronic timing is if all clubs used it across the board the the purchase costs should be much cheaper in a tender process via a national body. Timing chips part of your license costs & if you stop racing or hand in your license you get the refund for the chip back. Now back to dopes in grade racing!!!!

The timing chip usually only costs $5-$10 to the rider (x 100+ for clubs to outlay up front) but the 'system' can cost $10K or more to the club and I believe that some systems have ongoing fees (not sure if licence fee or IT support).

I thought the Amy Gran Fondo timing chip system that was incorporated into the seatpost 'race' number was quite good from an entrant point of view, no idea of the costs involved though. One of my local clubs was using the Times7 system (which has an oval shaped plastic chip that goes in a holder that attaches to front fork) but they have stopped using it now, not sure why.

I have no idea Ross to be honest in regards to costs but I just think its something that will happen eventually as technology becomes cheaper. Have used the Times7 system many times in State racing and another system in Queensland at Tour of Tweed. Appreciate your input.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:And I wouldn't make the assumption no-one around here has some involvement and/or insight in cycling administration in Australia.

If you are involved, then you'd know parameters such as ITT result, power, HR, and bodyweight have been seriously proposed to make grading between clubs and States more uniform than what they are. According to you, no two clubs have the same strength of racing, and only race performance determines grading best. It's a non sequitur, and the kind of naivety that says "if a system isn't perfect, it isn't any good, and wouldn't be an improvement over the status quo".

Maybe you're also a club handicapper Alex. Tell us how you go about allocating handicaps in a club handicap road race, when most riders have never placed in their current grade.

Please stop with the strawmen. It's getting tiresome. I've never said any of those things.

Yes, I have been a handicapper, amongst other roles at club and State level.

WRT handicapping, I use actual race results, since they are, by far, the best predictor of race ability. I have successfully handicapped many hundreds of races. Club, some open level, combine level, and a race series I ran for two years.

If a rider has not raced, then they race a default lower grade (unless it's blindingly obvious from pre-existing knowledge of that rider they needs to be a bit high or lower - e.g you observe them riding in organised rides). After that, their race results will determine whether or not they need to go up or down.

Novices need to race a lower grade in any case to demonstrate they have the requisite skills for racing, even if their fitness is superior to their competitors. Newbies are briefed accordingly. This is especially common in track racing. If a club has particular concern about new riders blitzing the rest of the grade, then the club/race can institute their own rules to deal with that, such as newbies can't earn points or prizes in their initial races. Then the emphasis is on them learning the ropes, while not overly affecting the race for the rest.

- Requiring power data from riders at all levels to grade people is simply impractical to implement, and in any case is less reliable as a predictor of race performance than actual race performance.

- Anyone who thinks HR has any relevance shows a total lack of understanding of the basics of physiological performance, let alone race categorisation/grading.

- Use of ITT results can be a guide (not always a good one given the different requirements for performance in ITT vs road/crit/track), but then we are talking about people who haven't raced so we are back to getting them to race in the first place. (As for TT's themselves, they don't require grading, only seeding).

So, once you've got them started in racing through their assigned novice grading, use their crit/road/track racing results to assign their crit/road/track gradings, since that will be far superior than using any non specific data.

Variability in grading exists in all sports. Play A grade football in a small country town, and it just might be you struggle to make the grade in a large metro league. Play lots of golf on a easy course and earn a low handicap, then get slaughtered when you head somewhere else for their comp.

So, have I said that the grading system is perfect and can't be improved? A: No.Should we use power meter data to grade people? A: No.What's the best way to grade people? A: Use their race results.

winstonw wrote:a 65kg rider with 4w/kg FT should be able to do a flat course ITT at 38kph. and 4.5w/kg would yield ~40kph.

COW FECAL MATERIAL. Speed is determined by power vs aero & mechanical drag. Weight is not a factor.

I don't appreciate the vacuous slurs from you either Twizzle. You've added nothing in your last few posts but moronic slurs, presumably because you are ill informed about the matter. If you have an administrative role with Cycling Australia or Cycling Victoria, and insight into their efforts to make grading racers fairer and more uniform, tell me all about it. I do have insight. And I don't appreciate inflated ego and ignorance clouding the issue, as is happening on this thread.

Ross wrote:The timing chip usually only costs $5-$10 to the rider (x 100+ for clubs to outlay up front) but the 'system' can cost $10K or more to the club and I believe that some systems have ongoing fees (not sure if licence fee or IT support).

I thought the Amy Gran Fondo timing chip system that was incorporated into the seatpost 'race' number was quite good from an entrant point of view, no idea of the costs involved though. One of my local clubs was using the Times7 system (which has an oval shaped plastic chip that goes in a holder that attaches to front fork) but they have stopped using it now, not sure why.

You need to to keep in mind the limitations in regards to theses systems.

They are all based on RFID principles and are either active or non-non active.

Non active systems, such as used at Amy Gillet Grand Foundo, rely on enough energy coming from the local transmitter hitting the tag with enough force to cause absorbtion to re transmit. This can lead to problems when multiple tags cross the line at near the same time. Just look at the problems with Times 7 that CA clubs have.

Actve system have there own power source to transmit. This causes the systems to expand in cost.

Timing chips are very common in FFC level racing here... I haven't done a lot as they are a big step up for me. FFC race Div 1-3 as a single bunch... They are big fields ( always over 100 ) so timing chips are really the only way to do it correctly. Seems to work without problem, chip on the chain stay. I have also used the ankle / or head tube ones which are pretty common in huge (1000's ) mass events... Also no problems. The cheaper options are the number recognition software systems... Nice large dossard on your back with your race number, a camera mounted high records the number, cheaper yes because it is just the basic race number on everyone's back instead of a chip... But both stage races where I have used this system has been a disaster ... So much so that a team mate running 2nd in a race in June had to rely on competitors verifying his position in the first bunch on one stage instead of the 2nd bunch they had him in. Both organizations have said they will revert to chips. Another note on licenses... Apart from having our grading on our license ( well it is actually on a separate card but both must be presented for a racing number ) ... We actually have to write any results we achieve ( top 5 placing ) on the back of that card. Grading in France is an insanely serious business ... But it does work.

Heffron Tuesday night racing uses timing chips, same system as the CNSW state run races. Was the same system used in QLD when I raced the para road nationals in Queensland in 2011. Just as well given I placed one step higher on podium by 1/100th of a second!

There are probably better systems, but it seems to be working most of the time, although there were problems with the electronic timing at the NSW State Masters ITT championships in September.

The UCI has a different system it deploys for timing at world level events - which we used when I was racing at the Road World Cup, and also when I was working at the UCI Elite World Road Champs in Copenhagen last year. Works in a similar fashion, just a different type of tag device attached to the bike. I think the UCI one might have an internal battery, as the device is a bit fatter (sort of like a wheel speed sensor) than the passive tag devices used locally.

winstonw wrote:If you are involved, then you'd know parameters such as ITT result, power, HR, and bodyweight have been seriously proposed to make grading between clubs and States more uniform than what they are. According to you, no two clubs have the same strength of racing, and only race performance determines grading best. It's a non sequitur, and the kind of naivety that says "if a system isn't perfect, it isn't any good, and wouldn't be an improvement over the status quo".

Maybe you're also a club handicapper Alex. Tell us how you go about allocating handicaps in a club handicap road race, when most riders have never placed in their current grade.

Giant can of worms that would never ever work in practice. Unless you own and use a properly calibrated power meter or you have your power profile measured using a cycle ergometer, how exactly is a power output table going to help with grading across clubs and states? As for HR or bodyweight, those are completely useless from a grading perspective.

At race rego.....Club handicapper: "so what is your 4min average power PB?"Cyclist from interstate: "um what? I've got no idea"Club handicapper: "well what grade do you race in back at your own club?"Cyclist from interstate: "c grade."Club handicapper: "ok well in general your club performs about the same across grades in national races as ours, so guess I'll put you in c-grade here too. If you're too good, then you can go up to b-grade next time"

If we DID use power output etc as criteria for grading, wouldn't sandbaggers have a field day?

Technician; "Now that you've paid your fee, ride as hard as you can while your bike is connected to the meter".

Rider; "Pant, puff, that's as hard as I can go. Gee, I can only put out 200W.....looks like I'll have to stay in D Grade one more year...."

BTW what would happen to those of us who ride 10kg bikes but have a TT bike and a roadie? Currently, the equipment component of our total performance is effectively taken into consideration because we are rated on the way we finish. If we are rated on power output, then we receive no such consideration. Those with the same power outfit + a 6.8kg bike + a TT bike would get an advantage over those with one cheapie.

winstonw wrote:a 65kg rider with 4w/kg FT should be able to do a flat course ITT at 38kph. and 4.5w/kg would yield ~40kph.

COW FECAL MATERIAL. Speed is determined by power vs aero & mechanical drag. Weight is not a factor.

Actually, Twizzle, Winston did tell you what the power was - 260w (65x4).

And the Cd and mechanical drag is?

I've been beaten in a TT when producing 353W average by a guy who did a 240W average - he had a true TT bike and decent aero rims and there were sufficient climbs to make power-to-weight a determinant. But he sure as hell wasn't as fast as me on the flat.

Edit: Point I'm trying to make is that there are stacks of factors determining average speed in a TT. Power-to-weight is a meaningless viewpoint. You can't say "Rider X at N kg with 4.5W/kg should do of time of Y.".

Edit: Typo.

Last edited by twizzle on Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

twizzle wrote:I've been beated in a TT when producing 353W average by a guy who did a 240W average - he had a true TT bike and decent aero rims and there were sufficient climbs to make power-to-weight a determinant. But he sure as hell wasn't as fast as me on the flat.

It is in French, 2 guys done at club level ... http://www.bienpublic.com/sport-local/2 ... -suspendus but basically it is doping in C grade, OK they might be A or B grade riders ( it doesn't say )... but in the big scheme of things they are racing for a little trophy in an amateur race. Actually makes me wonder how careful you have to be with doctors meds for a sinus problem or something at this level ... yeah I know rules are rules, but personally I took Prednisone a lot when I have sinus issues.Personally I have only seen anti-dopage at a couple of events... so I wonder if these guys were targeted.

Pretty sure there was a doctor racing C grade in Radelaide that got busted for doing Testosterone. I know he got busted cos he is a local rider but not exactly sure what grade he was in at the time. Ive raced with guys that got popped. Doesnt bother me as a rider that doesnt even drink coffee and I enjoy other riders giving me a hard race. If people didnt drink coffee etc then the racing would be pretty quiet with the greasy diets most people eat.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.